After reading over and over again, I thought that Sartre had placed the woman in ‘Bad Faith’ before she had even arrived on the date. Is this because the woman had agreed to go on the date, so therefore this placed her in ‘bad faith’ automatically, because Sartre says the woman knew from the beginning the mans intentions of the woman.

I have to agree with you all; on the comments about the woman not being in ‘bad faith’ because I feel that she is actually not in ‘bad faith’ at all. Could we argue that the man is the one in ‘bad faith’ for thinking and having intentions that he had from the beginning for the woman during the date. I think the thoughts the man is having for the woman on the date are a lot shoddier than the woman agreeing to go on the date in the first instance. Would this idea place the man in ‘bad faith’ according to Sartre?

When discussing the ideas in class I thought if we were to switch the roles of the man and woman on the first date, would Sartre have the same out come and thoughts? I personally think that Sartre would think that the man would not be in ‘bad faith’ as the woman was perceived. Is this because the man and woman have different expectations of the date, so therefore the mans expectations would not put him in ‘bad faith’ even if his thoughts and intentions were far worse than the thoughts of the woman.

Sincerity is empty

Raj I understood your point concerning the woman not being in bad faith as she is not making any hasty decisions on how she wishes to act simply because she is not sure of the situation and man she is with. I personally agree with your statement and do not think she is in bad faith at all as this is part of human nature. But one thing I would like to point out is Sartre’s statement on being sincere, Raj you mentioned in your discussion that if the woman forces herself to act upon the man’s advances in the way he expects her to this can be classed as her being in bad faith as she is not being genuine towards herself. (Which I personally agree with).As this statement of being genuine towards oneself is linked to being sincere towards oneself as well. But Sartre stresses on the notion of there being no such thing as being sincere, true or genuine to oneself as this is flawed because the moment you do make this claim of ‘being genuine, true or sincere to yourself’ you are establishing that you are a single static self and denying the transcendent of yourself, and implies some sort of declaration of self which Sartre completely dismisses.

I agree with Anju’s statement of the woman trying to decide on how she wants this date to continue and result. When Sartre claims her to be in bad faith for leaving her hand where it is when the man makes and advance, to me it simply implies the woman’s indecisiveness and of how unsure she is about the situation.

Making a decision or claiming the women to be in bad faith needs to be considered and explored. From this passage, I feel that the woman is not in bad faith at all. Yes, she is struggling to decide as to how to react, however if she were to force herself to act upon his advances in a way that he expects her to this can be classed as her being in bad faith. This is because she would be behaving in way that is not genuine, while not responding to his advances I see this as her being in good faith and not living in self deception.

If the female acts upon impulse or acts without even deciding what she really would want to do (and instead acts how she thinks her date expects her to) would also seem to be morally wrong. By conducting herself in a way which she does not wish to (for example, accepting his advances as intimate even if she doesn’t feel the same way as the male does) her freedom of being herself is being restricted.

First views on reading the chapter on " Conducts of Bad Faith"

The text seems to presume that the man has rather base intentions, which surely portrays men as sexual predators - surely doing a disservice to men in general. It could be possible that the man on the date truly does admire the woman and compliments her without an ulterior motive in mind? Some how I think for Sartre this is not apparantly so!



It is presumed that the woman is to understand the man's intention towards her, to expect them even though his actions do not betray him in the mode of being in itself. There also appears to be a contradiction here as Sartre while insisting on the limitless possibilities that freedom confers on a human being - it seems as if the woman is required or set up to expect only one intention.



Maybe her not responding immediately to his advances could be her trying to decide, perhaps she does have the answer within her to do what she wants to but you cannot fault the woman for attempting to work through her indecision to find it. Even if the woman does desire the man doesnt neccessarily mean its enough to respond favourably to his advances as this choice must be based on more than physical desire in order to be valid.



Sartre's notion of the ideal first date sitution seems to be that the woman should accept only if she intends to sleep with the man. Surely this notion weakens all personal relationships between people to a hasty evaluation of the other person as simply the objective use that they can provide. What about the being of consciousness of the people in this example, surely that should be accounted for and not disregarded for us to come to a better understanding of what is really going on in this situation rather than just going on Sartre's assumptions alone.